Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.The case of the petitioner in W.P(MD) No.20241 of 2021 is that, she is the daughter of ex-service man and the post of 'Noon Meal Organizer' at T.Goundanpatti is reserved for BC(Priority) Category. As a daughter of ex-serviceman, the petitioner in W.P(MD) No.20241 of 2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.13148 & 20241 of 2021 is eligible for the post on priority category. Without accommodating this petitioner in the said post, the petitioner in W.P(MD) No.13148 of 2021 has been wrongly appointed and therefore, the petitioner in W.P(MD) No.20241 of 2021 has made a request to the concerned authorities. While so, the order of appointment issued to the petitioner in W.P(MD) No. 13148 of 2021 has been cancelled by order dated 07.03.2016 and the same has been challenged by her in W.P(MD) No.4879 of 2016 before this Court and she had obtained an interim stay, based on which, she also continued to serve as 'Noon meal Organizer' in the aforesaid School for some time. The said writ petition was closed with a direction to the respondent to provide one opportunity to Chitra, to produce Priority Certificate. Even after providing sufficient time, she has not produced the Priority Certificate. Therefore, she is not entitled for the post of 'Noon Meal Organizer', which is reserved for Priority category. In the meantime, the petitioner in W.P(MD) No.20241 of 2021 has filed a writ petition in W.P(MD) No.19418 of 2020 before this Court and on 23.12.2020, a direction was issued to the authorities concerned to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders on merits within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Subsequent to which, on 10.03.2021, a proceedings has been issued in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.13148 & 20241 of 2021 Na.Ka.No.P7/403/2016, dated 10.03.2021, cancelling the wrong appointment made to Chitra and that when filling up of the vacancies for the post of Noon Meal Organizer, by direct recruitment in future, if the petitioner applies, she will be given priority, based on communal rotation and other requisite qualifications. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

6.For the sake of convenience, the petitioners are referred by their names hereinafter in this common order.

7.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that Chitra has been wrongly appointed even though she does not come under the category of Priority and the mistake committed by the authorities has been rectified by cancelling the order of appointment, within short span of time. He further submits that the post of 'Noon Meal Organizer' is fixed only as BC/Priority category and therefore, the persons who are classified in the Priority category by the Department alone are entitled to be appointed. However, the wrong appointment made by the authorities concerned has been rectified by way of the impugned order in Se.Mu.No.Pa7/406/2016, dated 19.07.2021. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.13148 & 20241 of 2021

8.Mr.V.Panneer Selvam, learned counsel appearing for Chitra submits that T.Govundanpatti is not classified as priority and there is no such provisions to that effect and only to accommodate other persons, they are taking a stand that the post is made for BC/Priority Category.

9.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for Dhanalakshmi has drawn the attention of this Court that the information, which has been provided by the concerned authorities that the post of 'Noon Meal Organizer' at T.Govundanpatti is classified only as BC/Priority Category.

10. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.

11.From the informations, which have been provided and from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it could be seen that the post of 'Noon Meal Organizer' at T.Govundanpatti is classified only for BC/Priority Category. However, the candidate Chitra has been accommodated in that post, though she was not having any such Priority https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.13148 & 20241 of 2021 Certificate. Even now, she is not in a position to produce the relevant certificate. On the other hand, the candidate Dhanalakshmi, who is the daughter of ex-serviceman and comes under the category of Priority has not been selected and when the issue was raised by her before the respondents, the same was rectified by way of passing the cancellation of appointment order to Chitra. It is further seen that the order of cancellation was challenged by Chitra before this Court and by way of an interim order, she continued to work for some time. Thereafter, the impugned order was set aside and a direction was issued to the concerned authorities to provide opportunity to Chitra to produce Priority Certificate. Even now, Chitra is not in a position to produce Priority Certificate and therefore, Chitra is not entitled to hold the post of 'Noon Meal Organizer', which has been classified as BC/Priority. However, Dhanalakshmi, who is the daughter of ex-serviceman is the eligible candidate for the said post.